How do you have the energy for this? Coffee just isnt that strong. You argue these all the time and the threads run from you dominating to you getting seriously smacked around and you just still keep going.

Party Boy:How do you have the energy for this? Coffee just isnt that strong. You argue these all the time and the threads run from you dominating to you getting seriously smacked around and you just still keep going.

What are you on? Let's sell it and make a mint.

My fuel is a mix of distilled rage from anti-semites and pesach leftover blood from christian babies, with a zest of honey

TatsumaMy fuel is a mix of distilled rage from anti-semites and pesach leftover blood from christian babies, with a zest of honey

Well, looks like we cant sell anti-semitism..... or can you.

Also, I'll disagree with "getting seriously smacked around", unless you mean verbally abusedIts happened a few times. Id like to jump in on a few occasions but I dont think its fair to hammer you when your running 4 arguments at a time.

Have I seen you get hammered one on one? No. But to be completely fair, some of those arguments are ignored/skipped too. In all honesty, arguing with 3 people is a PITA and you can miss plenty of the thread. You might just be skipping them.

devioustrevorThe Gandhi topic is bizarre to me. The debate here on fark is so much more polarized than what the literature reflects; which is a more candid discussion of the rights and wrongs of both sides. From what I've read so far, I believe the Israeli side is more open to self criticism in this sense. Even with this information available and presented on these threads, its strange to me that Gandhi is invoked. Why?

Invoking Gandhi in this case implies one side is an aggressor and the other is passive; If the aggressive side (Palestinian in this case) would just cease, then hostility would stop.

Much of the literature presented on the many threads on Fark declare errors and aggressive actions on both sides. Now, depending on what side is running this thread, I might anticipate discussion to prove the point that one side is clearly passive. However, dont ignore the previous threads that state how this isnt a simple discussion of aggressor/victim. I believe, Invoking Gandhi perpetuates this meme. Moreover, it perpetuates a unrealistic polarization of this debate into a simple moral case while ignoring the multi-faceted nature of this argument.

PersepolisDamn right its hard, but my opinion shouldn't be a suprise at all. I'm irritated at the inability of clear communication on the subject.

Lets open this statement up that I believe objectivity in political dialogue is a myth. Both sides (I even believe its simplistic to say only 2 sides) will employ propaganda, or "messages presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information." Many people are intimately engaged in this debate and will not, even within themselves, try to look at the situation objectively. Sources that buttress their worldview are passed as credible and others dismissed as propaganda, when, in reality, this criticism can be leveled to many "credible" sources.

With this seemingly difficult problem of bias, subjectivity, it is amazing we can come towards any revelation of a more complete picture of the event. This is most easily facilitated if there can be an open dialogue that employs, as a strict standard, no use of rhetorical and logical fallacy. Open discourse without the use of rhetorical or logical fallacy is the first step.

Jerome Champagne, a representative of FIFA's president for special affairs, this week sent an official letter to Israeli Ambassador to Switzerland Aviv Shiron, asking him to explain why the stadium was targeted before FIFA decided what action, if any, to take.

-Sir, missiles landed here, here and here this morning. Shall I prepare the artillery for a counterattack?-Are you insane, soldier? Get me FIFA on the line, we can't do this by ourselves.

This article simply screams "What the hell do you have to do with ANYTHING?".

So, now that we have determined the best way for any talks to occur, how do you suggest they get to that first step?

Im not really sure where you are going here. Can you restate?

I'm off to read Dershowitz' rebuttal to the Walt and Mearshimer paper that looks at pro-Israeli lobbies and their influence on US foreign policy.

Slander, so far, is the main detraction of this article. It's really too bad. Although this paper has generated a considerable amount of debate in the International mediam there's an absense of discussion of this article in the US mainstream media. This is strange because this article calls for a healthy discussion of the US foreign policy vis-a-vis pro-Israeli lobbies in the US.